September 9, 2012

Local organizers are continuing the rallies every Thursday through Nov. 1 to focus people's prayers on issues such as religious liberty and opposition to abortion and contraception, said the Rev. Rick Heilman, pastor of St. Ignatius Catholic Church in Mount Horeb.

Heilman said Nov. 1 was chosen as the last rally because the weather will be turning colder and because it is All Saint's Day, during which Catholics honor all saints....

At the Aug. 16 rally, Heilman told the crowd that "amazing things are happening right here in this very place," including the failure of "this whole nonsense of recalling this strong governor" (referring to Republican Scott Walker) and "now tapping our own Paul Ryan" as a vice presidential candidate....

Craig Spaulding, 47, of Madison, one of about a dozen counter-protesters who have been attending the rallies, doesn't buy it. "It's definitely partisan," he said. "It's all about the GOP."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, has been watching the rallies with concern. Tax-exempt groups such as churches are not to say or do anything that indicates whom they want people to vote for or against, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president.

I attend a weekly rosary that's just a bunch of women inside a church, and while someone always prays for political stuff, it's always general: "that our elected leaders will be wise and discerning," "that the Holy Spirit will guide our leaders toward holy ends," "for an end to abortion," "for the protection of religious freedom," and so on. At the rosary rallies, as at my own little rosary circle, the people joining in the rosary can have whatever specifics in their hearts they want.

I agree with Erica, most of the Republicans where I live are actually not pro-life. I always choose the Democrat, if he or she has a better overall record on social issues.

I feel some Catholics have swung the other way, for so long culturally the Democrats were our party. Our response can be blindly be Republican. Locally, I do not think my fellow older Catholics have held them accountable to issues. They get a pass, because we're so loyal and we do know our elected officials on a personal basis.

I'm sure the prayers are for Democrats too. I think Democrats, deep down, have a problem with abortion. After all, they never say the word. It's always about "reproductive rights", or a "woman's right to choose". If it's such a sacred right, how come they can't bring themselves to say the word "abortion"? Can you imagine Republicans talking about gun rights like that and never mentioning the word "gun"? Such as, "we believe in the right to self defense and therefore every American has the right to carry one of those mechanical devices that fire bullets!" Yay!

I'm sure the prayers are for Democrats too. I think Democrats, deep down, have a problem with abortion. After all, they never say the word. It's always about "reproductive rights", or a "woman's right to choose". If it's such a sacred right, how come they can't bring themselves to say the word "abortion"? Can you imagine Republicans talking about gun rights like that and never mentioning the word "gun"? Such as, "we believe in the right to self defense and therefore every American has the right to carry one of those mechanical devices that fire bullets!" Yay!

But really, it shouldn't matter. People assembling peacefully to protest, pray whatever. It's the American way. Or ought to be.

Yeah, it oughta be but the FFR's point, taken to the (for us) extreme is that there should be no praying in a public building because of that fake argument about 'separation of Church and State' - something that is not enshrined in either the DoI or the Constitution.

tiger, I believe the FFR's viewpoint is that there should be no state-sanctioned or state-supported prayer within a Government building. My understanding is that FFR doesn't care what individuals do. From the article, the only concern I got was that the praying was directed by a tax-exempt institution and was politically slanted (Not what I think, but that's what the argument goes).

I know that Catholics are somehow inspired by recitation of the long and tedious rosary, but I wonder when religion became simply a ritualistic exercise, free from the realities of day-to-day life experiences.

Divinity is a hard-to-sell concept, but I am not sure that religious rituals do the trick. On the other hand, I would be the last to get in anyone's way about their religious beliefs - until such time that they somehow step on my personal rights, possessions and privileges.

But as we can easily discern, the hearts and souls of progressives belong to the government, didn't you know? It was all over the Democrat Convention.

What Shouting said so I can in a very clergy-like way call them, "Poor misguided souls."

Madison Man, if that's FFR's official agenda it's only for the moment. It is a step toward eliminating religious influence in our culture.

Black churches of all kinds have always gotten a pass on this tax exempt stuff. I find it annoying but then I'm racist.

A church can speak out on issues and even legislation as long as it does not involve a significant amount of the organizations resources. I can preach against abortion and against laws which allow it.

FFR and Americans for Separation of Church and State (Barry Lynn) pedal a lot of disinformation to intimidate churches and Christians (yes I meant what I said, Christians).

I actually had a local group in our city send us a letter letting us know that they were sending out observers to monitor churches (conservative evangelical ones though it was not stated) during the 2008 election cycle. Didn't change a thing I said. I let them know I knew the law better than they did.

I know that Catholics are somehow inspired by recitation of the long and tedious rosary, but I wonder when religion became simply a ritualistic exercise, free from the realities of day-to-day life experiences.

The Rosary was multi-media before anyone knew what that was. It enables one to pray on several levels. The repetition is intended to quiet the inner distractions and focus; focus on what? The meditations on the saving actions of Christ, that accompany the Rosary.

Unless you experience the Rosary first-hand, you may not realize the meditative, mental prayer that is part of it. All you see is someone fingering beads, all you hear is repeated prayers. There's more.

So, if a Priest gets up in Church and says that the Church is against abortion, or in favor of Freedom of Religion, the Church should be immediately stripped of its tax-exempt status.

Ideally, the prayers should be: "Let everybody [including the Democrats] realize that abortion is murder. Let everybody [including the Democrats] realize that forcing the Church to subsidize abortion is a violation of Freedom of Religion." There, nothing partisan about that.

"The limitation on speech that goes with being tax-exempt applies to the latter, not necessarily the former.

This is an area of law partly, but not fully litigated, but it stands to reason."

No, it doesn't. There is no limitation on speech that goes with being tax exempt where religious institutions are concerned. Churches pay no taxes because the government has no authority to tax churches, not because the government generously chooses to refrain from taxing them. It'd be more accurate to say that churches are "tax ineligible".

The limitation on speech that goes with being tax-exempt applies to the latter, not necessarily the former.

This is an area of law partly, but not fully litigated, but it stands to reason.

Bryan C replied:

No, it doesn't. There is no limitation on speech that goes with being tax exempt where religious institutions are concerned. Churches pay no taxes because the government has no authority to tax churches, not because the government generously chooses to refrain from taxing them. It'd be more accurate to say that churches are "tax ineligible".

When I said "it stands to reason," I meant, to distinguish between communication ad intra vs. ad extra, and that whatever restriction may apply, should not apply to ad intra communications.

Whether government may, or ought, to tax currently tax-exempt organizations is another.

What is your basis for saying government lacks authority to tax religious bodies?

gadfly said...I know that Catholics are somehow inspired by recitation of the long and tedious rosary, but I wonder when religion became simply a ritualistic exercise, free from the realities of day-to-day life experiences.

It takes about 20 minutes to pray the rosary.

It's obviously not tedious to those praying it.

And it has everything to do with the realities of day to day life experiences.

Your deeply heavy higher ground concerns got me thinking, as they do, that we did see Madison hawks developing, and that was all well and good and full of wet white juicy hawk poop squirting out like a squirt gun, and dead rodents and such, but we haven't seen anything about Wisconsin hummingbirds.

Do hawks prey on hummingbirds?

So I asked Google and turns out they do, and 380,000 hits in .33 second says there are a lot of people out there ahead of me asking incredibly stupid hummingbird-related questions.

Opposition contraception can be done for 'organic' reasons. The cost to remove the estrogen waste from the use of the Pill is staggering.

http://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

"In the environment

EE2, a synthetic hormone, is only one of a cocktail of natural and synthetic hormones that humans excrete into wastewater, including other estrogens. EE2 has a potent biological effect at low levels.

"Animals are exquisitely sensitive to it," Jobling told LiveScience.

The body of a fish or a frog reacts to EE2 as if it were a natural estrogen, "demasculinizing" male animals and creating a condition called intersex that interferes with an animal's ability to reproduce, Jobling said. Intersex males often produce eggs in their testes."

I wasn't responding to you, Fr. Fox. I was responding to the initial claim that the rosary people were partisan.

It's a bit like how being a free market capitalist is racist. The fact that you're libertarian or trend libertarian isn't explanation enough.

Sure, someone could be a racist and lie about why they opposed Obama's policies because they really DO think Keynes was right and normally are on the far end of democratic socialist. But if someone's been a small-government sort, a Reagan guy, or has been libertarian, or even is just figured out that they *might* want to build their own plumbing business someday... probably they aren't just making it up.

The most likely motivation of Catholics opposing abortion and contraception is that they're Catholic first and that leads to whatever political involvement. It's not "made up" for partisan ends.

People made the claim about the Swift Boat vets, too, that it was just partisan politics. It was opportunism. That there wasn't a perfectly logical reason for Vietnam vets to hate Kerry's guts. That they were *pretending* and had made up their reasons to serve their partisan political goals.

That's all.

It's a way of dismissing the opinion people have as illegitimate. It's *partisan*. That's all. The content is irrelevant and can be ignored. It's another way of saying "shut up."

"I get the feeling that "the government ought to do that" isn't a universal tenet of the Catholic faith"

Talk is cheap. Look at actions.

The Roman Catholic Church is hardly a bastion of support for liberty, and that is true on so many levels.

I am not judging any individual believer! It would never be my place to do so.

I'm talking about the institution, which, as a human with a mind, I believe I am obligated to do, since one has to make choices about one's relationship to such institutions. I think I've been pretty clear about what my conclusions are. I have plenty of reasons beyond what's here, but this is hardly the place to go into them.

I daily pray for our leaders to make wise decisions. I never mention their political position. I don't think God takes that into consideration. I love Roman Catholics BTW. They are in my family. I am Presbyterian. We are all Christians. All Celts.

I love Roman Catholics BTW. They are in my family. I am Presbyterian. We are all Christians.

Yes, indeed we are all Christians. We are all part of the one catholic church. This includes Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Orthodox, and indeed, Roman Catholics, to name but a few, whether the word "catholic" appears in the generally used name of the denomination or not.

It isn't the Roman church--that's the point.

Indeed, that's my point, too. The Roman (Catholic, if you insist) Church is not the same as the Catholic Church; it is but one part of the Catholic Church.

I love the fact that in all churches I've seen the Apostle's Creed recited--Protestant, Roman Catholic, whatever--the small c 'catholic' is used in "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."

I agree with you. The ecclesial communions do share in the catholicity of the Catholic Church. There is a unity that is deeper than the rending by human sin, perceivable by the eyes of faith. Don't tell the fundamentalists, though, it makes them really mad.

The US bishops conference supported health care reform, and don't care which party gives them back their religious freedom. First Amendment should be loved by all Murkans. We are not trying to get all employers to deny contraceptive coverage. Heck, give out free lube if you want to.

Catholic means not merely "universal" but also "pertaining to the whole"; the word Catholic came to be used, in the early Church, in pointed counterpoint to the term sectarian (obviously in Latin or Greek).

Saint Augustine at one point addressed this subject -- google it if you like -- where he said, in effect, yes, everyone likes to claim to be Catholic, but when someone says, yes but where is the Catholic Church, it's clear what they mean and there's only one place to send them--to the church in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Other Christians who are not in communion with the bishop of Rome nevertheless have some relationship with, and even a membership in, the Catholic Church, because of baptism. This is because, in the most basic sense, Catholic Church = Body of Christ; you can't really be in one without being in the other.

This is complicated by the obvious consideration that there may well be those who will be saved, ultimately, without being formal members of the Catholic Church, or even baptized. This occasions a big debate, which doesn't take long to be tiresome.

My answer is to say that when it comes to eternity, and all shadows are filled with light, and everything is clear, then whoever is saved, will be saved (a) by the merits of Christ, even if they didn't know it or understand it. And (b) they will be a member of the Church in eternity even if they were never a formal member here on earth.

A further, obvious, inference is that this includes any number of folks who, on earth--perhaps right now!--who would say, "no, I have no interest in the Catholic Church!"--or even Christ; yet, they will, somehow between now and their final judgment, be reconciled to Christ.

This includes, reasonably, the possibility that in rejecting the Catholic Faith or even Christ, they did so not out of contempt for the truth, but because they were misled about what Christ and his Church stand for, or they were put off because of the sins of Catholics or Christians they encountered, etc. All for God to sort out.

In any case, it remains true that anyone properly baptized is a part of the Catholic Church. Yet their communion with the Church is often incomplete, or wounded. That's why we don't share the Eucharist with those who are (a) inactive, (b) persisting in mortal sin, or (c) members of other Christian bodies that aren't in sync with the totality of Catholic belief, or (d) who aren't in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

At the Second Vatican II, this and more is what the document Lumen Gentium was trying to get at when it, somewhat controversially, said the true Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church as we know it.

Finally, if folks are going to say, "oh, I'm a member of the Catholic Church too," then I say, wonderful. Please get caught up on what the ecumenical councils and the Successors of Peter have had to say. Come to confession to a valid priest; get confirmed validly. And any priest will be glad to receive you into full communion. Easy-peasy.

Catholic means not merely "universal" but also "pertaining to the whole"; the word Catholic came to be used, in the early Church, in pointed counterpoint to the term sectarian (obviously in Latin or Greek).

Yes, I agree. "Catholic" does mean pertaining to the Church as a whole, rather than one sectarian part of it, such as the Baptist church or the Roman Catholic church, to name two of those sectarian parts.

Saint Augustine at one point addressed this subject -- google it if you like -- where he said, in effect, yes, everyone likes to claim to be Catholic, but when someone says, yes but where is the Catholic Church, it's clear what they mean and there's only one place to send them--to the church in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Saint Augustine was very sectarian in his own way. And he was wrong here. The Catholic Church is not in any one specific place on earth, but in all parts of Christ's body of believers here, whether that's the Church based in Rome, or the Coptic Church, or whatever.

Other Christians who are not in communion with the bishop of Rome nevertheless have some relationship with, and even a membership in, the Catholic Church, because of baptism. This is because, in the most basic sense, Catholic Church = Body of Christ; you can't really be in one without being in the other.

You might as well say that the bishop of Rome is not in communion with these other Christians as vice versa.

In any case, it remains true that anyone properly baptized is a part of the Catholic Church. Yet their communion with the Church is often incomplete, or wounded. That's why we don't share the Eucharist with those who are (a) inactive, (b) persisting in mortal sin, or (c) members of other Christian bodies that aren't in sync with the totality of Catholic belief, or (d) who aren't in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

This is indeed what the Roman Catholic Church does. I will point out that I very much doubt that Jesus intended his Eucharist to be used as a political tool in such a way. He did not even deny his body and blood to Judas at the last supper. Conditioning Christ's supper on bending the knee to the bishop of Rome is, frankly, despicable.

Finally, if folks are going to say, "oh, I'm a member of the Catholic Church too," then I say, wonderful. Please get caught up on what the ecumenical councils and the Successors of Peter have had to say. Come to confession to a valid priest; get confirmed validly. And any priest will be glad to receive you into full communion. Easy-peasy.

Folks don't just say they are members of the Catholic Church, too; they actually are. I make my confessions to Christ (as well as others, of course), certainly as valid as any priest of any Christian sect. I have been confirmed. I am glad to hear that now any priest will receive me into full communion (as if the choice is theirs, anyway)!

Well, our Lord put the Apostles in charge, with Peter the leader. The authority to teach and govern the Church belongs to the Apostles and their successors. And from the very beginning, it was necessary to remain in communion with the Apostles, including their leader, Peter.

As far as what our Lord did, or did not do, regarding the Eucharist...whatever happened with Judas is irrelevant; although if you care to, please demonstrate that he received the Eucharist. I don't think you can show that.

But what is on point is what the Church did from the beginning. And all the evidence we have--from the Didache, Justin Martyr, included--is that folks didn't receive the Eucharist unless they had confessed their sins and were in communion with the Catholic Church--i.e., in communion with the bishop of Rome.

As far as confession...well, you know what I was referring to: confession to the Church, with absolution from the bishop. The practice of auricular confession came much later.

As Blessed John Henry Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Well, our Lord put the Apostles in charge, with Peter the leader. The authority to teach and govern the Church belongs to the Apostles and their successors. And from the very beginning, it was necessary to remain in communion with the Apostles, including their leader, Peter.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Peter appointed anyone as the leader of the Church? Or that after Peter's martyrdom the Church as a whole did so? Of course, the church in Rome appointed a leader for it. What evidence is there that the Church as a whole at the time felt that that individual led the Church? My presumption is that one of the surviving original twelve would be considered more senior. Can this seriously be rebutted with contemporary info?

As far as what our Lord did, or did not do, regarding the Eucharist...whatever happened with Judas is irrelevant; although if you care to, please demonstrate that he received the Eucharist. I don't think you can show that.

Well, I know you can't show that he didn't. The silence in the gospels on that particular matter speaks volumes, don't you think?

But what is on point is what the Church did from the beginning. And all the evidence we have--from the Didache, Justin Martyr, included--is that folks didn't receive the Eucharist unless they had confessed their sins and were in communion with the Catholic Church--i.e., in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Uh, no. Seriously, the Didache, for example, is readily available. There is not a single mention of the Roman church anywhere in the Didache. In no way does the Didache support any sort of primacy of the bishop who happens to be in Rome. There is an awful lot about itinerant preachers, though.

Here is what it has to say about who should receive the Eucharist:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, 'Give not that which is holy to the dogs.'"

Later, when talking about what to do during Sunday services, there is:

"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned."

I will note that this is about who can attend the services. Does the Roman Catholic Church not allow people not in full communion (as you put it) to come to its services?

As far as confession...well, you know what I was referring to: confession to the Church, with absolution from the bishop. The practice of auricular confession came much later.

Actually, as we're looking at the Didache, let's consider what it has to say about confession:

"You will acknowledge your wanderings in an assembly, and you will not come forward to your prayer with an evil consciousness."

That is, confession should be public, in front of the assembly. Does the Roman Catholic Church practice public confession?

The writings I've found have all talked about communion with the local Church, not some Church in Rome that the people never met and rarely communicated with.

As Blessed John Henry Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Heh, tell that to an Orthodox priest. You will get to have a long discussion. I could also rejoin: Only if you ignore medieval history.